What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Michigan OT Goal

Re: The Michigan OT Goal

uaafanblog said:
Perhaps you should have looked up the word "EVIDENCE" as well. See the word you chose to look at is primarily a modifier that in conjunction with means much more than your supplied definition implies.

ev·i·dence   
[ev-i-duhns] Show IPA
noun, verb, -denced, -denc·ing.
–noun
1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.

Next day after conclusiveness (which the weak picture doesn't show anyway) isn't applicable to the argument. The question is whether the referees had "conclusive video evidence" to overturn the original call. They didn't.

Arguing that the referee who made the on ice call couldn't see because his view was obstructed is meaningless. Referees not seeing everything IS PART AND PARCEL IN THE NATURE OF THE GAME. Which is why video review was instituted.

So with no "conclusive video evidence" during the review process (not grainy frame grabs from hours later) then the correct choice for the video reviewing officials would have been to uphold the on ice call.

Yes, I think the puck probably crossed the line. I think it probably should have been called a goal. And yes, a misapplication of the process ended up being justice. HOWEVER, it shouldn't have went down that way. The ends does not justify the means. There are any number of uncalled and/or called situations during a hockey game which may have measurable effects on the outcome of the game. Pretty much the same way in every sport that has subjective refereeing. It's the nature of sport. It happens. It is the way it is.

But when you introduce stupidity like "video replays" (and I've never liked them at all) to enhance objectivity then objectivity should be enhanced. In this case it wasn't. Because the video review official used his subjective judgement from the preponderance of views to come to a conclusion that the puck was probably in. He was probably 98% sure and I don't think this trite BS of "at least they got the call right" is BS. Anyway, it should be 100% to overturn a call on the ice ... that would be "conclusive evidence".

And I'm not bothered at all that rinky-dink U from bumpkinland got knocked out of the tourney.
Click to expand...

All in all you're not an official. None of us here are (at least NCAA D-1 officials), therefore we must succumb to their expertise. It was a goal, end of story.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

If you don't think the videos are conclusive, then you probably just haven't watched them enough times. Note that conclusive does not mean "immediately apparent". It took the refs a good 10 minutes to make sure they saw it right. The TV announcers were going back forth until they had seen the review a number of times. Even I didn't even think there was anything to see until the last time they showed the overhead shot on the original broadcast. But once you figure out what you're supposed to be looking for, the puck is decidedly across the goal line.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Pants said:
I think it's because last year there was a definite whistle blow before the puck went in...right? Even if the whistle was blown pre-maturely, etc, play was stopped before the puck went(clearly) in.
Click to expand...

No, but it's not worth debating. The whistle was simultaneous to the puck entering the net. That didn't matter, the official's "intent" was to blow the whistle prior to the shot because a delayed penalty was in process and Miami allegedly touched the puck. It was an egregious error that could not be corrected, unlike this case where the intent was to get the call right no matter what definition of conclusive video evidence was required. My whole point is, exactly one year later, you have the same class of people who basically said "sit down and shut up Michigan fan" saying... Michigan's victory is fraudulent, they cheated! I find it ironic and delightfully hypocritical.

Are there fans that could care less about either school and have an opinion that sits on either side of the debate? Yes, but I hazard to guess within a safe degree of certainty that they are in the minority. Their opinion is duly noted. They certainly aren't humming "The Victors" if they agree that the verdict was just, any more than those that didn't agree are burning the block M in effigy.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

kdilks said:
Note that conclusive does not mean "immediately apparent".
Click to expand...

streaker said:
That didn't matter, the official's "intent" was to blow the whistle prior to the shot because a delayed penalty was in process and Miami allegedly touched the puck. It was an egregious error that could not be corrected, unlike this case where the intent was to get the call right no matter what definition of conclusive video evidence was required.
Click to expand...

Both good points.

At the end of the day the worst thing to come out of this in my opinion is next year when this happens, we still will be left with inconsistent calls from one game to another, from one officiating crew to another, or one league to another, and more than likely from regular season interpretations to ones in the post season. Much like with all the pucks entering the net off a skate over the previous couple of seasons, the NCAA has a chance to put forth guidelines that more clearly state what officials will be looking for and at, and what constitutes conclusive evidence. And they won't do it. So the debate will pick up where this one eventually leaves off and nothing will be settled.

Wait a minute, on second thought, the worst thing to come out of this is that Michigan won the g****mn game...;):D
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

gomavs#1 said:
UMICH - our hatred for all things Michigan has much to do with how successful Michigan was against UNO for many years. And, probably more than that, it was the assumption, whether fair or not, that UNO never would get a fair shake against the Wolverines in the CCHA. We were the little guy and were treated as such by many of the McInchaks of the world. Most UNO fans have no idea who you are talking about...seriously. Most UNO fans could really care less about Jed Ortmeyer.

With Dean Blais in charge - I like our chances against Michigan in the future. After all, with the exception of last night's fluke win, Blais owns Berenson. Period.
Click to expand...

1998 ncaa west regional?? all time tourney record is berensen 2 wins 1 loss.....

U!N!O! fans WANT to be the little guy, they relish that role...therefore they are perpetual newbies
 
Last edited:
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

There is another thread on here that shows the puck IN THE NET. I thought that UNO had been screwed 6 ways to Sunday, but after seeing the video I saw...It's a goal...No doubt in my mind.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

streaker said:
Cut to the chase, Rick. The puck went in, even though it took a puff of white smoke out of a cathedral to declare it, and that deviates from the normal NCAA course of getting the call wrong for the sake of following the rules to the letter of the book. That's all the legitimacy I needed, especially when the official pointed to center ice- and that took courage.

To your last point, I find irony being UNO in the same "acerbic" position Michigan was in one year ago and yet the masses-sans our own of course (whether in red & black or wearing some other school's tinted glasses) are now claiming conspiracy! or bias! or process deviation! versus, "those are the breaks, you dumb maize and blue b@stages". Plenty of evidence to support a presumption of us against the world with all of the distaste from that crowd. So, it's not just a matter of "you don't agree with us, so you must be haterz", since logic seems to be void in the face of rage. Count me in as one of those you point at in mock amusement, or should I say, join in on your amusement. The seizure inducing hatred is so delicious it should be served on crackers, especially with UNO fans who have nothing but the axe handle left in their trembling hands.

By the way, tried to post an elegant congrats for your season on Mavpuck, but I guess Bridget & co. decided to finally pull my membership. Go figure... and yet some poster asked where were all the Michigan fans on your site? Kudos to Maize & Brew for deftly suggesting that our views are not generally accepted. I guess the welcome mat got rolled up after this one.

I hope you still like me. :)
Click to expand...

wow..... the inbred newbies finally kicked out the last outsider and person that doesn't agree with them 10000% of the time.....delicious...
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Well friends don't forget it wasn't that many years ago that we had no video review whatsoever. I can think of more than a few games in those days where I felt teams were robbed by bad calls at the goal and if we only had video review like football it would eliminate the controversy. Guess it didn't eliminate all of it eh?
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

Hockeybuckeye said:
Well friends don't forget it wasn't that many years ago that we had no video review whatsoever. I can think of more than a few games in those days where I felt teams were robbed by bad calls at the goal and if we only had video review like football it would eliminate the controversy. Guess it didn't eliminate all of it eh?
Click to expand...

Don't tell that to Maine fans....I've got a feeling a few are still a bit unhappy after the 2004 Final. :D :p
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

streaker said:
Are there fans that could care less about either school and have an opinion that sits on either side of the debate? Yes, but I hazard to guess within a safe degree of certainty that they are in the minority. Their opinion is duly noted. They certainly aren't humming "The Victors" if they agree that the verdict was just, any more than those that didn't agree are burning the block M in effigy.
Click to expand...

Very much agreed on all counts.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

And my response, not directed toward you of course, was a comment about the use of the term "inbred newbie". I teach 7th grade...7th graders are really good at gross generalizations. This seems to be the level of rhetoric from the post above. Again, not your post, not sure why you even responded. :eek:
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

At some point it behooves a fan base to actually be the fan base it wants to be.

Michigan won the game, by literally the narrowest of margins. Procedurally wrong, yes, but substantively right.

Ours was one of, what, three teams that won at Yost this year, a couple draft picks against a couple dozen, and the magic of college hockey is that our townie school went 5-2 against the almighty Big 10 this year. We have nothing to be ashamed of in our team, our league, or school, or our boys. Rolling around in the snot with UMICH and his redoubtable ilk does little to advance any of our causes. His level of evolution is not the ceiling.

Time to evolve with the team, guys.
 
Re: The Michigan OT Goal

dubbie31 said:
There is another thread on here that shows the puck IN THE NET. I thought that UNO had been screwed 6 ways to Sunday, but after seeing the video I saw...It's a goal...No doubt in my mind.
Click to expand...

I agree. I was watching another game on TV and they showed the ending of this game. I thought UNO got royally screwed, and said so on this site and elsewhere. They showed about 100 replays on ESPNU, and I watched them all. The puck was never seen in the net on any of them. I thought this was one of the worst decisions I'd ever seen. Then I saw the video on the other thread, which they never showed during the broadcast I saw. I was wrong. It was a goal. I wanted UNO to win, but the call was correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top